MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2187793574

Practical aspects for implementing in vitro embryo production and cloning programs in sheep and goats

2012· article· en· W2187793574 on OpenAlexaff
Hernán Baldassarre

Bibliographic record

VenueAnimal Reproduction · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicReproductive Biology and Fertility
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSomatic cell nuclear transferCloning (programming)BiologyEmbryoIn vitro fertilisationEmbryo transferOffspringSomatic cellReproductionZygoteEmbryo cultureAndrologyReproductive technologyBlastocystBiotechnologyGeneticsPregnancyEmbryogenesisGeneComputer scienceMedicine
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In vitro embryo production has the potential to produce more offspring from genetically valuable animals than standard MOET as it is capable of avoiding most of the causes of failure in MOET (poor response to superovulation, poor fertilization and premature luteolysis). It also allows repeating collection in the donor animals more often and more times in their reproductive life. However, consistent results are not easy to obtain when conducting large scale programs, mainly due to variability associated with the in vitro fertilization results. Cloning by somatic cell nuclear transfer has been used by a few groups to successfully produce genetic copies of individuals of high genetic merit, but remains to be a very inefficient reproduction technology even in the hands of those that have been successful in producing multiple live clones. This review provides a collection of tips and points to consider when planning in vitro embryo production and cloning programs in sheep and goats.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.419
Threshold uncertainty score0.492

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.089
GPT teacher head0.364
Teacher spread0.275 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations24
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAnimal ReproductionSame topicReproductive Biology and FertilityFrench-language works237,207